NBC’s Andrea Mitchell made what some may call a not-so-Freudian slip on her daily cable news show that broadcasts on MSNBC.

Mitchell asks former Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) what he thinks of Republican criticism that “we” are politicizing the bin Laden killing. Mitchell quickly corrected herself and said it is the White House that is being accused of politicizing the event.

Actual quote from Andrea Mitchell: “What do you think of the Republican criticism that we are politicizing it — that the White House, I should say, is politicizing it?”

Yeah, Andrea: you damn well SHOULD say “the White House” instead of “we” when the White House says something. Not that you ever made the mistake of conflating your thoughts with the White House when it happened to be the BUSH White House, did you???

Obama to mainstream media at last year’s White House Correspondence Dinner: “I am Barack Obama. Most of you covered me. ALL of you voted for me.” And their response was to laugh because it was true and they all knew it was true and it is by now obvious to anyone with more brains than a jellyfish that it’s true. Well, that and the fact that Dear Leader told a funny and all journalists are required to laugh whenever Messiah tells a funny.

When Obama shouts out his latest campaign slogan, how does Andrea Mitchell and her fellow “reporters” respond?

Which is incredibly weird, given that Obama’s slogan – “Forward” – means forward into ruin:

And of course this crap from Andrea Mitchell – and pretty much most of her fellow commisar comrades – just goes on non-stop. Not even a full week ago Bill O’Reilly was exposing Andrea Mitchell as a biased left-wing hack propagandist masquerading as a “journalist”:

On Wednesday night, on the Fox News Channel’s O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly took on the subject of media bias, focusing specifically on a recent report by Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC which showed that she was less than objective when it came to covering Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

O’Reilly discussed this bias with Sally Quinn, the editor of The Washington Post’s On Faith blog.

O’Reilly: I told you the other night that NBC News runs MSNBC. It’s the same management. I also told you they use the same people. Andrea Mitchell is the chief foreign affairs correspondent for NBC News. Here’s what she said yesterday on MSNBC:

Mitchell:“I had the advantage, or disadvantage, as the case may be, of watching Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich at the same time on side-by-side screens. It’s my job; someone has to do it.”

O’Reilly said that Mitchell crossed the line by disparaging an entire political party (the GOP) when her job is to be an objective reporter, to which Quinn disagreed.

Quinn: I don’t see it that way at all, Bill. I don’t understand what the fuss is. I read that quote over and over and I kept thinking, “What is wrong with this?” I mean, have you ever tried to watch two speeches at once and then try to report or speak about either one of them? It’s impossible. So when she says, “I had the advantage or the disadvantage,” it’s really hard to try to make something—

O’Reilly: Alright, but in the context of the discussion on MSNBC, it didn’t have anything to do with Sally’s (he meant Andrea’s) technological problem. It had to do with who she was watching. And she—

Quinn: I don’t think so. I don’t think so. Because she said she thought Romney’s speech was good, and Romney’s speech was good. So I think that she was—

O’Reilly:So you’re giving her the benefit of the doubt?

O’Reilly then pointed out that if Fox News’ Carl Cameron said the same thing about reporting on Obama, there would be an outcry from the liberal press, which even Quinn agreed with:

Quinn: Well, you’re right about that. You’re right about that: the liberal press would have said that they were—they were somehow ideological, but—even though they weren’t.

Quinn has a very high opinion of Mitchell, calling her “beyond reproach.” But in a 2007 appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, Mitchell told O’Reilly that there wasn’t a bias at any of the major broadcast networks and that she didn’t think Chris Matthews was a “liberal thinker.”

Talk about living in a bubble.

Mitchell’s lament wasn’t the first time she showed a flash of her disdain for Romney and the GOP.

In January, when discussing the Iowa Caucus, Mitchell said that the rap on Iowa was that it didn’t represent the rest of the country because it was “Too White, Too Evangelical, Too Rural.” More recently she suggested, without any verifiable proof, that Romney’s family entered the country illegally from Mexico.

I’m sure other liberals besides Quinn will rush to Mitchell’s defense. But Mitchell’s reporting, on a daily basis, clearly reveals a liberal bias.

Of course, Chris Matthews is the guy who famously had the “thrill going up my leg” as he heard his messiah speak. So when you ask a transparent liberal like the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn if a fellow transparent liberal like Andrea Mitchell is transparently liberal, and what do you think the transparent liberal is going to say about the transparent liberal?

“The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared.”

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell stirred up the dirt with the completely unsubstantiated claim:

Mitchell reported that some “Obama people” were suggesting “that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well prepared.”

A McCain aide said that is not the case: “Senator McCain was in a motorcade led by the United States Secret Service and held in a green room with no broadcast feed.”

Mitchell made the comment in the context of saying McCain did better, and that the Obama camp was defensive. In response to the campaign’s letter, she pointed out that journalists get criticism from both sides.

“I wasn’t expressing an opinion,” Mitchell said. “I was reporting what they were saying.”

I wonder if she would have given the McCain campaign charge as much “impartial” coverage.

In any event, we are learning that John McCain was not actually inside the “cone of silence” the entire time Obama was speaking. He did not actually enter his “cone of silence” until half an hour into the program. He had been in a Secret Service motorcade, and then proceeding to the forum, for that half an hour.

Was McCain gaining an advantage by listening in during part of that half hour?

Let me point some things out:

First of all, let it be stated for the record that there is no possible way that McCain could have been listening for the entire half hour, but only for about half of that time when he was actually in the motorcade. During part of that time, Rick Warner was introducing the event. And the first couple questions were fairly personal.

Given the fact that McCain could not even possibly have listened in to the entire program, how do those who claim McCain cheated account for the fact that McCain’s answers were strong throughout the event? McCain wasn’t just “well prepared” for a few minutes; he was razor-sharp throughout.

Saddleback spokesman Larry Ross has said that the first couple of questions were released to the candidates in advance so they wouldn’t be nervous, and that the categories of question were also released beforehand. In fact, Larry Ross said that he actually gave Obama the third question beforehand (and Obama actually admitted “I cheated on this”) but was not able to tell McCain the question.

Finally, I would argue that, had John McCain actually listened to Barack Obama’s answers, it would only have rotted his brain with Obama’s long, drawn-out pontifications and actually harmed him.

Did anyone notice how many more questions McCain answered – because his answers were concise and to-the-point – than Barack Obama? How – by the Obama claim of listening in and cheating – did McCain prepare for those?

What I find most interesting is the panic from the Obama camp that this charge would come out, which implicitly acknowledges that their boy flopped, and the vindictiveness that making the claim of cheating without any actual evidence represents.